SHIMOGA AUCYL (P) LTD. vs KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant, i.e., M/s. Shimoga Aucyl (Pvt.) Ltd., in this complaint, has sought the relief to remove deficiency in service by resorting the supply of electricity to R.R. No. P-855 at the cost of the opposite parties, by re-installing the meter board and with drawing the demand of back billing charges and also compensation of Rs. 8,43,136/- for loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

THE complainant is a company running a cast iron foundry manufacturing centrifugal castings and other general casting items as a small scale unit in Industrial Area at Manchenahalli, Bhadravati, Shimoga. THE opposite parties are the K.E.B. authorities. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party was servicing the complainant''s unit by supplying electricity through R.R. No. P. 855. THE opposite parties in the morning of 18-4-1992 raided the factory premises of the complainant along with the police and in the absence of any Director or any responsible officer of the company and without intimating the complainant''s company, disconnected the power supply by cutting off the cables of the factory. THE opposite parties when subsequently approached by the complainant tor reconnection of the power supply to the complainant''s unit, refused to do so without assigning any reason. THE complainant further averred that on 28-4-1992, the opposite parties intimated the complainant''s company that the opposite parties raided the power installation of the complainant''s company on 18-4-1992 and found loss of electrical energy sustained by the Board and showed back- billing charges under Rule 44.07 in a sum of Rs. 2,72,930/-. The complainant nextly averred that due to these negligent acts on the part of the opposite parties in disconnecting the power supply to the complainant''s company installation, the complainant did suffer huge loss and disconnection amounted to clearly a deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought the reliefs as narrated above.

The opposite party filed statement of objections and disputed the allegations made by the complainant''s company. The opposite party averred that the disconnection of power supply to the complainant''s company .was for the violations of supply conditions and for having committed the theft of energy by the complainant. The opposite party further averred that the vigilance squad along with the concerned authorities of police gave a surprise visit to the complainant''s installation and found the complainant''s company acting in violation of supply regulations and committed a theft of energy and, therefore, a criminal case was registered against the complainant''s company in Crime No. 137/92, under Section 379 I.P.C. read with Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also under Sections 56 and 138 of the I.E. Rules, 1956 and during the course of investigation, the police stopped the power supply and seized the meter board and other electrical equipments.

THE opposite party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. While the complaint was posted for enquiry, the opposite party raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the registration of criminal case against the complainant coimpany would operate as a par agent the proceedings in the connected Consumer Dispute and the averments contained in the complaint did not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and so the complaint did not disclose any cause of action and so was untenable.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties on this preliminary objection. WE are considering herein the only this preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties. B. The complainant has at paras 7 and 8 of the complaint averred thus: "7. on 18-4-1992, at about 8.30 A.M. the 4th opposite party, Asstt. Executive Engineer (Ele) Vigilance Squad, Shimoga who is the employee of 1st party without any notice or intimation to the complainant raided the factory premises of the complainant along with the 3rd opposite party and police. The complainant and/or other Directors or any responsible authority of the company were not present nor they notified of the raid. Later the complainant came to know that the 3rd opposite party unilaterally disconnected the power supply by cutting off the cables of the factory of the complainant without any intimation." It is clear from the allegations contained in the complaint that at about 8.30 A.M. on 18-4-1992, the Vigilance Squad along with the Police made a surprise visit to the complainant''s installation and at that time none of the Directors of the complainant''s company nor any responsible officer of the company was present, the power supply came to be stopped to the complainant''s installation.

THE opposite parties have averred that in the morning of 18-4-1992, the complainant''s installation was checked by the Vigilance Squad alongwith the Police and it was found that the complainant''s company was committing the theft of electrical energy acting in violation of the supply regulations.

THE opposite parties have produced a copy of F.I.R. in crime No. 137/92 registered by the Rura1 Police, Bhadravati under Section 379 I.P.C. and under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also under Sections 56 and 138 of I.E. Rules, 1956 against the complainant''s company. THE opposite party has also produced a xerox copy of the mahazar drawn by the Rural Police, Bhadravati during the course of investigation of the said crime. We have marked these two documents as Exs. R-l and R-2. THE complainant has not disputed this fact of registration of the case of the Rural Police, Bhadravati and recording of mahazar during the course of investigation as per Exs. R-l and R-2. The material averments in mahazar, Ex. R- 2, read thus: The translation of which reads thus: "The supply of electricity connected to the "O" and "M" Unit at Industrial Development Area is stopped from the electric pole fixed with tamper proof box by the Lineman, Sri. B.L. Puttaswamy, No. C-19, Bhadravati and since the said tamper proof box is necessary for further investigation in this case, duplicate seal alongwith the seal fixed outside the motor box is seized for investigation by the Police and they have taken the same under their custody."

This would clearly go to show that it was the police authorities who were investigating the case which they had registered in crime No. 137/92 against the complainant''s company, stopped supply of electricity while holding the mahazar and seized the meter box and other electrical equipments. The disconnection of the power supply, it is evident, to the complainant''s installation was made by the concerned police while investigating into the case registered against the complainant''s company and not by the opposite party. Therefore, it is evident that the averments contained in the complaint do not show that services rendered by the opposite party did in any way suffer from deficiency in any respect and so it did not disclose any cause of action for filing this complaint against opposite party. The averments contained in the complaint as referred above do nor show any imperfection or shortcomings in the performance which is required to be maintained by the opposite party. So it is clear that everments contained in the complaint did not disclose that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party so as to entitle the complainant to seek relief before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set up under the Act. We are, accordingly, constrained to reject this complaint petition on the aforesaid ground.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant placed before us certain decisions to show that the pendency of a criminal case would not operate as a bar against the proceedings in the connected consumer dispute. THE decisions are not relevant for the purpose of disposing of this complaint. It suffices for us to observe that at this stage we cannot give any finding regarding the mahazar recorded by the Police and as long as it stands we have to hold that the disconnection of the electricity to the complainant''s unit was at the instance of the police and not by the K.E.B. If that is so, there would be no deficiency of service on the part of the K.E.B. As referred above, we have come to the conclusion, on the basis of the averments contained in the complaint, that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties so as to entitle the complainant to seek relief before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and so in view of this finding, we hold that it is not necessary to record a finding on the other aspect of the matter-whether registration of a criminal case would or would not operate as a bar against the proceedings in the connected consumer dispute. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this complaint. Complaint dismissed.